Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 16:09:47 -0800 From: Kent Stewart <kstewart@owt.com> To: "Brian T.Schellenberger" <bts@babbleon.org> Cc: mattmobile <mattmobile@proweb.co.uk>, Justin L Boss <jlboss@yahoo.com>, FreeBSD-Questions <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Port Colection Message-ID: <3C855E4B.1000405@owt.com> References: <3C8537E3.6010703@yahoo.com> <002501c1c48e$fcfddbe0$6501a8c0@fwoom> <20020305214342.0784ABA03@i8k.babbleon.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brian T.Schellenberger wrote: > On Tuesday 05 March 2002 04:44 pm, mattmobile wrote: > >>>Why do most people use the port collection instead of the package >>>collection? I only use the PC if I cant find a pkg. The pkg takes >>>considerable less time and space, So why use the port unless you have to. >>> >>it also means that you compile against the downloaded libs >> >>I've had packages fail when compiling succeeds (version clashes being the >>culprit). >> >>I have default optimizations and cpu target set for the compiler, we don't >>want everything targetted at the 486 instruction set! >> > > Not to mention that with a broadband connection it's usually easier and about > as fast to go to the port directory and "make install" as it for me to hunt > up my CD for the package. > > I guess I could learn to pkg_add over the network, though. The kicker here is that after an upgrade a port may take a week for its package to get updated. If something in a port is bothering you and they fix it, the pkg_add from the network won't work because the tarball may not be there for awhile. A make install is still faster for really current stuff. Kent -- Kent Stewart Richland, WA mailto:kbstew99@hotmail.com http://users.owt.com/kstewart/index.html To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C855E4B.1000405>